In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a
highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater
the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a
highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater
the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.

We both agree that the observer effects reality then. I guess we could debate until we are long in the tooth to what degree and on what level this
effect takes place. So I will stand by my statement that we do effect reality through our observation of the world.

We both agree that the observer effects reality then. I guess we could debate until we are long in the tooth to what degree and on what level this
effect takes place. So I will stand by my statement that we do effect reality through our observation of the world.

I believe the statement was that consciousness affects reality, not observation.

Classic science as I am sure you know works on a subject / object view of the world. The object its perceived to exist by the subject. That perception
is consciousness. So I still stand by statement..)

Classic science as I am sure you know works on a subject / object view of the world. The object its perceived to exist by the subject. That perception
is consciousness. So I still stand by statement..)

Pouring an acid into a base also changes reality. You no longer have acid and base.

Thank you for your reply. I watched the video but I am still not with you on it. The extracted from the video what I though was of relevance.

'the very act of measuring or observing which slit it went through meant it only went through one'

'the observer collapsed the wave function simply by observing.'

In the first quote they are lumping measuring and observing together in the second they are simply saying the act of observing collapses the wave..

If for example you recorded it on a machine. All you are doing is moving the wave function to a different level. The machine is just like the cat in
the box. Until it is observed the wave does not collapse. It is the same thing.

If for example you recorded it on a machine. All you are doing is moving the wave function to a different level. The machine is just like the cat in
the box. Until it is observed the wave does not collapse. It is the same thing

Yes, but it seems as if it's the "wave" that is conscious.

It make descisions according to its environment.

The truth is that no-one completly understands it.

The fact is, the more experiments they do, the spookier the results get...

The act of "observation" is more than just passive, it's active, because energy is being used to "observe" from the instrument itself. There isn't a
collapse of a "wavefunction" in reality, it's only after the fact in terms of mathematics. We go from having what seems to be random splatter,
to more predictable, and therefore a collapse of the "wavefunction".

Not sure how many times physicists have to mention this before it sticks.

As for water memory, yea... there are far too many holes in that one.

Dr Emoto (sp) didn't allow anyone to verify his results or look over his data. If that isn't telling.

How many people in this thread are aware that most of the people with scientific credentials who participated in the movie "what the bleep do we know"
have criticized it, saying their words were taken out of context, and that they do not endorse the message portrayed in it?

webedoomed
How many people in this thread are aware that most of the people with scientific credentials who participated in the movie "what the bleep do we
know" have criticized it, saying their words were taken out of context, and that they do not endorse the message portrayed in it?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.